• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.291-319
• /
• 2004

The seller may take a warranty with respect to the goods. If they are not as warranted, they may be held liable for the breach of warranty. Even when they has not made a warranty, the law will in some instances hold them responsible as though they had made a warranty. An express warranty is a part the basis for the sale. That is, the buyer has purchased the goods on the reasonable assumption that they were as stated by the seller. When the buyer intends to use the goods for a particular or usual purpose, as contrasted with the ordinary use for which they are customarily sold, the seller makes an implied warranty that the goods will be fit for the purpose when the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, and when the seller at the time of contracting knows or has reason to know the buyer's particular purpose and his reliance on the seller's judgment. A merchant seller who makes a sale of goods in which he customarily deals makes an implied warranty of merchantability. The Uniform Commercial Code expressly abolishes the requirement a privies to a limited extent by permitting a suit for breach of warranty to be brought against the seller by members of the buyer's family, his household, and his guests, with respect to personal injury sustained by them. Apart from the express provision made by the Code, there is a conflict of authority as to whether privies of contract is required in other cases, with the trend being toward the abolition of that requirement. At common law the rule was that only the parties to a transaction had my rights relating to it. Accordingly, the buyer could sue his immediate seller for breach of warranties. The rule was stated in the terms that there could be no suit for breach of warranty unless there was a privies of contract. The code expressly abolishes the requirement of privies to a limited extent by permitting a suit for breach of warranty to be bought against the seller by members of the buyer. Apart from the express provision made by the Code, there is a conflict of authority as to whether privies of contract is required in other cases, with the trend being toward the abolition of that requirement.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.275-305
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of price, known as a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice were later introduced into England through the Continent. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and European marine insurance law have common roots. Nevertheless, significant divergences between English and European insurance systems occurred since the late 17th century, mainly due to different approaches adopted by English courts. The rule of warranty in English marine insurance was developed and clarified in the second part of the 18th century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of marine insurance, and developed different approaches, especially in the field of warranty in marine insurance law. Since the age of Lord Mansfield, English marine insurance law has a unique rule on warranty. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall rule of the rule of warranty in English marine insurance law. The result of analysis are as following. First, warranties are incorporated to serve a very significant function in the law of insurance, that is, confining or determining the scope of the cover agreed by the insurer. From the insurer's point of view, such the function of warranties is crucial, because his liability, agreed on the contract of insurance, largely depend on in, and the warranties, incorporated in the contract play an essential role in assessing the risk. If the warranty is breached, the risk initially agreed is altered and that serves the reason why the insurer is allowed to discharge automatically further liability from the date of breach. Secondly, the term 'warranty' is used to describe a term of the contract in general and insurance contract law, but the breach of which affords different remedies between general contract law and insurance contract law. Thirdly, a express warranty may be in any form of words from which the intention to warrant is to be inferred. An express warranty must be included in, or written upon, the policy, or must be contained in some document incorporated by reference into the policy. It does not matter how this is done. Fourthly, a warranty is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the contract, and, therefore, once broken, the insurer automatically ceases to be liable. If the breach pre-dates the attachment of risk, the insurer will never put on risk, whereas if the breach occurs after inception of risk, the insurer remains liable for any losses within the scope of the policy, but has no liability for any subsequent losses. Finally, the requirements on the warranty must be determined in according to the rule of strict construction. As results, it is irrelevant: the reason that a certain warranty is introduced into the contract, whether the warranty is material to the insurer's decision to accept the contract, whether or not the warranty is irrelevant to the risk or a loss, the extent of compliance, that is, whether the requirements on the warranty is complied exactly or substantially, the unreasonableness or hardship of the rule of strict construction, and whether a breach of warranty has been remedied, and the warranty complied with, before loss.

• Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.55-65
• /
• 2002

In this paper we present a Bayesian approach for determining an optimal maintenance policy following the expiration of warranty for a repairable system. We consider two types of warranty policies : non-renewing free replacement warranty (NFRW) and non-renewing pro-rata warranty (NPRW). The mathematical formula of the expected cost rate per unit time is obtained for NFRW and NPRW, respectively. When the failure time is Weibull distribution with uncertain parameters, a Bayesian approach is established to formally express and update the uncertain parameters for determining an optimal maintenance policy. We illustrate the use of our approach with simulated data.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.241-247
• /
• 2015

The purpose of the warranty data analysis can be classified into two categories. Two goals is a failure cause analysis and life prediction analysis. In this paper first, we applied multivariate analysis method that can be estimated in consideration of various factors on the failure cause warranty data. In particular, we apply the Tree model and Cox model. The advantage of the Tree is easy to interpret this result as compared to other models. In addition Cox model can quantitatively express the risk. Second, this paper proposed a multivariate life prediction model (AFT) considering a variety of factors. By applying the actual warranty data confirmed the usability.

• Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.21-31
• /
• 2002

This paper considers a Bayesian approach to determine an optimal replacement policy for a repairable system with warranty period. The mathematical formula of the expected cost rate per unit time is obtained for two cases : RFRW(renewing free-replacement warranty) and RPRW(renewing pro-rata warranty). When the failure time is Weibull distribution with uncertain parameters, a Bayesian approach is established to formally express and update the uncertain parameters for determining an optimal replacement policy. Some numerical examples are presented for illustrative purpose.

• Asia Marketing Journal
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.93-112
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of explicit and implicit product warranties on consumers' attitudes toward the products, and particularly, the main effects of product types and level of manufacturers' business ethics on the relationship between warranty types and consumers' attitudes. For this purpose, relevant literature was reviewed and thereupon, a survey was conducted for an empirical analysis. As a result of empirically analyzing the relationship between warranty types and consumers' attitudes and the main effects of the product types (search goods vs. experience goods) and level of business ethics (high vs. low) on the relationship, it was found that consumers' attitudes toward the products were more positive when the product warranty was explicit than when it was implicit, and that such relationship was stronger for experience goods than for search goods one. And, the relationship was stronger when the level of business ethics perceived was lower. However, such moderating effects were not significant for consumers' attitudes, but significant for their purchasing intention.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.209-240
• /
• 2012

Since the age of Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundation of the modern English insurance contract law in the second part of the 18th century, English insurance law has developed a unique rule of warranty. Lord Mansfield adopted very different approach and afforded such a strict legal character to insurance warranty, because the promise, given by the insured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk insured at that time. It is still important that the insured keep his promises strictly to the insurer under the insurance contract, but legal environments have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. English Law Commission proposed some proposals for reforming the warranty regime to reflect the changes of legal environment in CP 2007. This article is, therefore, designed to examine the proposals and consider their legal and practical implications. The proposals of Law Commission is summarized as following. First, in CP 2007, Law Commission made two principal proposals for reform of the law on warranty. The first is that the insurer should not be entitled to rely on a breach of warranty unless the insured has been provided with a witten statement of what they have undertaken under warranty. The second is that the insurer should not be entitled to reject a claim on the ground that the insured has breached a warranty unless there was a causal connection between the breach and the loss. Secondly, for consumer insurance, the rule requiring a causal connection would be mandatory, whereas for business insurance, it would be possible for the parties to agree on the effect a breach of warranty should have, provided they use clear language to express their intentions. Thirdly, where the insured contracted on the insurer's written standard terms of business, some statutory controls would be afforded to the contract to ensure that the cover was not substantially different from what the insured reasonably expected. Finally, Law Commission propose that a breach of warranty give the insurer the right to terminate the contract, rather than automatically discharging it from liability, but (unless otherwise agreed) only if the breach has sufficiently serious consequences to justify termination under the general law of contract. Having evaluated the proposals of the Law Commission and considered their legal and practical implications, it is quite clear that the proposed rule interfere with freedom of contract and create legal uncertainty. But change can not made without any victims, so Law Commission's attempt to change severe and injust aspects of the warranty regime would be very welcomed and respected.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.23-43
• /
• 2016

This study describes the exclusion of the seller's liability for defects in title under CISG and UCC. Through comparing two provisions, this article provides contracting parties with guidance regarding choosing governing laws and practical advice. CISG and UCC states not only the seller's liability for defects in title but also the exclusion respectively. Under two provisions, contracting parties who wish to avoid this liability may agree that the liability will not apply. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(2), the seller's warranty can be disclaimed by specific language in the contract or by the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Although there is no express exclusion provision under CISG Article 41 and 42, Article 6 allows contracting parties to agree that they may exclude the application of the seller's liability. Both Article 42 under CISG and ${\S}$2-213(3) under UCC provide where the buyer furnishes specification to the seller. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(3), it is the buyer's warranty to hold the seller harmless from any claims which arise from the seller complying with specification furnished by the buyer. But, under CISG Article 42, the seller's duty is excluded if the third party right or claim result from the fact that the seller has complied with specifications provided by the buyer. Therefore Article 42 does not charge the buyer with the duty, but rather limits the circumstances under which he could cause claims under Article 42. Interestingly, CISG has provisions which are absent from UCC. First, under Article 41, the seller escapes the liability if the buyer agree to take the goods subject to the third party right or claim. Second, under Article 42(2)(a), the seller is not liable if the buyer knew or could not have been unaware of the third party right or claim at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.36 no.5
• /
• pp.329-338
• /
• 2012

The Institute Time Clauses-Hulls 1/10/83 has been using widely with attachment and/or endorsement of the Institute Warranties 1/7/76 stipulating vessel's trading limits. Taking into consideration of several changes and renewals on the contents of the Institute Time Clauses-Hulls for clarifying the clauses themselves with development on technology of vessel's construction and navigational equipments up to the present, the clauses on the Institute Warranties 1/7/76 should have been changed and/or renewed. Moreover, the insured still has been burdening additional premium in vessel's navigating and / or calling to the areas stipulated in the Institute Warranties 1/7/76 regardless of any changes of marine business environments. Thus, this study aims to analyze the Institute Warranties 1/7/76 as well as to suggest a reasonable level of additional premium for breach of Institute warranties through not only a comparative analysis between the Institute Warranties clauses and those of the corresponding Institute Warranties using in the Japanese Fire and Marine Insurance companies but also consideration of current circumstances on changes in climatic conditions, vessel design, navigation and communication requirements and capabilities.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.5 no.5
• /
• pp.219-227
• /
• 2005

This paper suggests to guideline food safety and economic gains in the restaurant business Industry. First, provide useful tools for easily understanding in the food safety and express warranty Second, manage all documents like sanitation report, claim report in related to the product liability as a precautions. Third, execute fast & proper action for consumer's demage. Fourth, organize positively brand image in the corporate. Fifth, implement useful tools in the product standard and qualification such as ISO9000, HACCP, and PLMS. Sixth. Support co-partner against product liability. Seventh, take a action early for product liability in the foodservice industry.